Working Theory In Jet Crash: IPhone In Cockpit Is To Blame (appleinsider.com) 154
Apple Insider reports:
Apple on Friday said that it's open to cooperation with French authorities, who are exploring the possibility that two of the company's devices were linked to the crash of EgyptAir Flight 804 in 2016. The flight's first officer may have plugged an iPhone 6s and an iPad mini 4 into the wrong socket in the jet's cockpit, French officials told Le Parisien. That may have triggered runaway heat, in turn sparking a fire.
At the moment, the investigation is being helped by an engineer from the French National Center for Scientific Research, as well as two people fron the French defense ministry, including a physics professor and an engineer specializing in batteries. Results from the investigation should be submitted by Sept. 30. Apple told the Parisien that it wasn't aware of evidence linking its devices to the EgyptAir disaster.
At the moment, the investigation is being helped by an engineer from the French National Center for Scientific Research, as well as two people fron the French defense ministry, including a physics professor and an engineer specializing in batteries. Results from the investigation should be submitted by Sept. 30. Apple told the Parisien that it wasn't aware of evidence linking its devices to the EgyptAir disaster.
Story not exactly clear on details (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
thats like blaming the dishwasher for ruining your record collection because you put them in there to clean them
Re:Story not exactly clear on details (Score:5, Insightful)
if the phone was plugged into the wrong outlet, wouldnt that be the pilot (or co pilots) fault not the iphones fault?
No.... Why does a "wrong outlet" exist that will accept a USB cable or A/C device without the appropriate over-current fuses or safety protection to prevent a fire?
Re: (Score:2)
No.... Why does a "wrong outlet" exist that will accept a USB cable or A/C device without the appropriate over-current fuses or safety protection to prevent a fire?
Indeed. And presumably if this is a working hypothesis, it would be simple to test - find the same "wrong outlet" type and plug in a bunch of iPhones and see if it catches fire.
I really really want to believe that the engineers designing a cockpit wouldn't have a socket like that without the correct safety stuff. I am not an electrical engineer so not sure how hard it is to implement?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an electrical engineer so not sure how hard it is to implement?
Designing an outlet install is a trivial exercise. If they got it wrong it was probably either gross negligence by whoever designed/installed that outlet, Or fault/and-or/counterfeit electrical components. There may be a few special considerations on a plane such as air pressure differences and different supply frequency, which means that a few adjustments to the normal calculation methods may be needed, and specially-certifi
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, I suspect "cycles per second."
Aircraft need small parts and one way to decrease transformer size, to convert from AC to DC is to use 400Hz instead of 60Hz.
That higher frequency would cause havoc on a small iPhone/iPad charger.
Re: (Score:2)
not really, the very first semiconductor part in charger is a diode bridge rectifying voltage(doesnt give a flying f about frequency), after that is active PFC and then proper DC-DC
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, laptops and iDevices charge just fine from the 110 V 400 Hz outlet on the circuit breaker panel behind the first officer's seat. I don't know why anyone thought it was a good idea to shape it like a standard American power outlet given the totally different frequency, but I've seen quite a few colleagues use it and have also used it myself on the ground on occasion. It's unlikely to have anything to do with the fire. The only reason they're investigating it is because they've seen camera footage of
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. In fact, with proper overcurrent protection, most any modern switching power supply will work just fine from DC, too.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need big-ass selenium rectifier plates for this to matter. 400Hz will make the diodes run a bit hotter from switching losses, but I can't imagine any scenario where this would liberate so much heat as to cause a fire. More likely, the diodes would fail open and the device would stop working and that's that.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to humor you, I have a variable frequency power supply and have plugged various Apple power supplies into it (magsafe bricks and USB supplies). They all seem to work fine and aren't any warmer than usual. I've done 400Hz 90V and 240V, to test on both extremes of the input voltage range. 90V is the worst case for rectifier heating from the average current, 240V is the worst case for rectifier heating form switching losses.
Re: (Score:2)
Many airlines have standard ipad apps to replace the maps pilots have formerly used on aircraft.
Re:Story not exactly clear on details (Score:5, Informative)
There have been standards in place for quite some time now governing the power capacity of USB ports. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Power)
Sorry this is a bit of a long-winded explanation but it's all stuff you have to know to understand the issue.
The iPhone is somewhat "notorious" for refusing to charge off a port that doesn't communicate the amount of current it is allowed to draw. ("you cannot charge form this device" popup of some sort, I don't recall the exact message you get) This caused frustration from some who bought cheap car and wall adapters and found their iPhone wouldn't charge from them, despite other phones charging fine. To Apple's credit, this was the correct and (fire) safe behavior. Devices that just continue blindly and overheat themselves or other accessories are just plain poor design, but should still not be capable of posing a hazard in the charger.
Voltage (5v in this case) is supplied "on supply", in other words the power source dictates the voltage and the accessory needs to be capable of handling it. Accessories that can't tolerate how high the voltage is will probably be damaged by it, and could pose an overheat/fire hazard. Since all USB are supposed to run at 5v, voltage is not an issue because USB supplies and accessories all expect 5v.
Current on the other hand, is supplied on demand, meaning the accessory decides how much power to draw from the supply. If it draws too much again there is an overheat/fire risk, but this time from the supply not the accessory. Power (in the form of current, where power = voltage x current) overdraw has become an important consideration with USB now that it's become something of the de-facto battery charging standard. Larger devices (like bigger cell phones and especially tablets like iPads) can "quick charge" their large batteries by drawing more current at 5v. But the supply needs to be capable of safely delivering the higher power. The USB spec says to use DC drop resistors on the D+ and D- data lines to communicate fixed values that the accessory can look up in a table to determine how much power the supply claims it can safely deliver. These resistors aren't necessary to USB data function and can be omitted but then the accessory has no way of knowing how much power it can safely draw. It should then default to the "bare minimum" of 25mA of current, which would charge most modern devices very slowly. (or like the iPhone, just flat out refuse to charge at all) This is enough power though to operate unpowered accessories like mice and keyboards. Some larger accessories (like tablets and battery banks) can adjust the amount of power they draw to suit the maximum specified by the supply. An iphone can charge at either 500mA or 1000mA, for example, depending on the charger it's attached to. Again it's very important to understand the amount of power being drawn by the accessory is entirely determined BY the accessory. The phone is charging at 500mA NOT because that's how much the charger physical can provide, but because it has TOLD the phone how much it can safely provide and the PHONE is only demanding 500mA form it at as result.
If the phone wants 1000mA and the charger is telling it that it can only safely supply 500mA, but the phone just ignores that and tries to draw 1000mA, the charger's acceptable responses are both limited and well-defined. Quality chargers will simply detect the overdraw and stop providing power, and your phone will probably go into charge for a fraction of a second and then immediately stop charging. You might ask yourself "why doesn't the charger just refuse to provide more power than it can safely manager?" Power = Voltage x Current. To keep Power constant (at 500mA) when the device has rigged current it is drawing so that it will get 1000mA, it COULD cut the voltage in half since it has control over that. BUT that violates USB standards. They specifically say you can't do that, your only response is to TURN OFF the supply of power entirely. The accessor
Re: (Score:1)
"To keep Power constant (at 500mA) when the device has rigged current it is drawing so that it will get 1000mA, it COULD cut the voltage in half since it has control over that. BUT that violates USB standards. They specifically say you can't do that, your only response is to TURN OFF the supply of power entirely."
It's been a while since I read the specs, but isn't this statement contradicting how a USB DCP charger _should_ behave according to BC1.1/1.2 ?
As in, when Idcp goes above what the charger can deliv
Re: (Score:2)
Many USB loads are non linear and present negative resistances: the lower the voltage, the higher the current. A supply/charger that attempted to maintain a constant power mode by assuming a positive resistance load would start oscillating with such a load.
Re:Story not exactly clear on details (Score:4, Informative)
Just responding to several replies to my previous post all at once here.
Unless the USB ports were following the very first standard (back when peripherals were only allowed to draw a piddly 100mA) they still should be watching the current and kill power if there's an overdraw. Age is not an excuse for unsafe behavior since it's always been specified how you should handle overdraw. by the accessory.
Part of the story here is those drop-resistors. People ask "why can't the charger and the device communicate two-way?" The answer is those resistors. It costs money to build in communications, not a lot but china's cheap. If you want a cheap charger, 5 cents in resistors beats a buck in an IC and 6 other support components. And back when USB came out, prices were a lot higher. So the chargers just set the voltage and are supposed to shut down if the accessory ignores them and overdraws. But again, that's added cost and China won't support that. They'd much rather overspec on the package and overheat in your cigarette lighter jack. You're more than likely to just fry it after a few weeks of overdrawing abuse, in which case you'll just go buy another one, and that's precisely what they want anyway, so don't expect that to change anytime soon. Ignoring the standard is in their best interest.
Yeah.... "firebugs". Do not use them. Ignoring the maximum power rating on your charger is like sticking your fingers in your ears and humming when someone warns you not to do something dangerous. So unless you're trying for a Darwin Award, don't use those. If you insist, then for the love of god don't leave it charging unattended! There's a real risk you'll set your car on fire while you're getting groceries or something.
Your electronics background should help here. If a device is setting its load to draw a certain power, and your supply can't manage that much current, dropping the voltage is the opposite of what you ought to be doing to maintain power. It's a bit of a paradox problem. "The only winning move is not to play". Shut off. Dropping the voltage will cause most good phones to stop charging. Then the charger rebounds voltage since the load disappears. Then a few seconds later the phone starts charging again. Rinse and repeat. I think most of us have seen a phone do that, chirp chirp chirp chirp, as it continuously bounces between "charging" and "not charging". In case you haven't ran into that, the phone doesn't actually get charged, it's just super annoying for anyone nearby that has to listen to it. So please don't design a power supply that does this, it only helps if you're a cheap power bank that doesn't care but yet somehow has a buck-down regulator that can still operate at voltages approaching the load voltage (typically 3.7v)
3.7 volts is incredibly common right now in devices. Here's a nice primer for the new arrivals: http://www.instructables.com/i... [instructables.com]
Pretty much every cell phone on the planet uses a flat lipo pack since they're currently the best price point for storage-density. Modern semiconductors tend to be made for lower voltages, so this is fine. A li
Re: (Score:2)
Given that many USB devices are constant-power loads and thus have negative resistance, I'd be very leery of any sort of a constant-power supply (because that's what you talk of) that's designed for positive resistance loads. A constant-power supply that can deal with negative resistances is not something shown in application notes that people blindly copy from...
Re: (Score:2)
that's like blaming the dishwasher for ruining your record collection because you put them in there to clean them
How else am I suppose to get all the dust from all the nooks and crannies in the grooves?
Re: (Score:2)
With a mini vac, duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Wood glue can do wonders
http://120studio.com/vinylclea... [120studio.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This - if you are the engineer, there is no such thing as pilot error. The pilot is not allowed to be at fault, because that can't be fixed.
Cash me outside (Score:2)
Was the pilot texting while flying again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't testing. He was winning at Angry Birds.
If there's any Irony in a situation like this, he was playing a flight simulator or studying for his flight safety exam.
Re: (Score:1)
It would be ironic if studying for a flight safety exam compromised flight safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Some airlines have moved to iPad-based electronic checklists, navigation charts, logbooks, and crew timekeeping (I don't know if Egypt Air is among them). This saves hundreds of pounds worth of physical paper books from being hauled around on every flight, which adds up to millions of dollars per year in fuel. As well, there are some very widely-used aviation apps like ForeFlight that are only available on iOS.
For better or for worse, iPhones and iPads have taken over the cockpit. It doesn't mean the pilot
The User License Agrement ... OOPS (Score:1)
Apple Ink.s User License Agreement is now in play to pin Apple and Timmy Cook for murder.
The reason is that the User License Agreement on all Apple products does NOT transfer ownership of the device to the purchaser! The License is a USE License, and therefore ownership is retained by Apple!
So, if the fire started with the iPhone + iPad, Apple Ink. and Timmy Cook have full responsibility for all loss of life and property!
It may be 10 to 18 months before the arrest and extradition orders are cut to get Timmy
Not the right deduction (Score:1)
The reason is that the User License Agreement on all Apple products does NOT transfer ownership of the device to the purchaser! The License is a USE License, and therefore ownership is retained by Apple!
So since the pilot plainly broke the devices through misuse, his survivors owe Apple an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that the User License Agreement on all Apple products does NOT transfer ownership of the device to the purchaser! The License is a USE License, and therefore ownership is retained by Apple!
So since the pilot plainly broke the devices through misuse, his survivors owe Apple an iPhone.
Or Apple owes them a plane.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be an interesting case too from the case of the responsibility of the owner of the device.
Depending on where you live it may be the owner of the device, not the user of the device that can be held responsible if there's a problem caused by the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, I'd buy the device and then agree to a user license agreement. The device would belong to me before I agreed to the user license, and that wouldn't affect ownership. Generally, in US jurisprudence, a sale means ownership transfer, and handing over money for a physical object is a sale unless agreed otherwise, and I haven't seen anyone buying an Apple device and signing a contract to the contrary.
The problem is the sockets are ill-designed. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if this is the case in the Airbus A320, but in smaller aircraft (including GA airplanes) there often is a power port that looks like the cigarette lighter port in many cars. They easily fit USB car chargers such as this one. [amazon.com] (For years I used an earlier generation of this very adapter in a Cessna 172 to power my iPad.)
The problem is, unlike in a car where the power port is always around 12-14 volts, the voltage in aircraft has (to the best of my knowledge) never been standardized. I've heard of airplanes which pump out up to 28 volts (instead of 12-14 volts), which is why if you are not certain of the airplane you're flying in, you need a specialized adapter such as this one [sportys.com].
Since so many aircraft have power ports at 12 volts, many pilots I know simply buy a car power adapter. But if you plug it into a 24 volt power port (and the ports are often unmarked: the only way to tell is to crack open the airplane's POH), you're going to have a bad time.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no form of overcurrent protection anywhere? Not even a fuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Overcurrent protection and fuses don't help much in overvoltage conditions. If the overvoltage damages the device enough to cause a short, the fuse can help protect that, but it may already be too late at that point: a small fire might have already started.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, no, maybe.
You are correct, a 1A fuse for a 12V system will pass 12W of power, whereas the same 1A fuse on a 48V line would pass 48W of power - leading to (up to) 4x the heat generation.
The thing is, 4x heat generation _shouldn't_ be a fire-starting problem - usually. And, if it is, the device should include some form of "thermal fusing" in addition to a simple current limiting filament. UL et. al. wouldn't pass a device like this if simply over-volting the input would lead to fire, especially over-v
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no.
Power dissipation in a resistor is proportional to the square of the current P = I^2R, where P is power, I is current and R is resistance. The current is proportional to the potential difference. If you apply 12V across a 12 ohm resistor, the current will be 1A and the power loss will be 12 watts. If you apply 48V across the same resistor, the current will be 4A and the power 16W.
Of course, if you have a 1A fuse in series, it will blow long before you get to 4A, but it works by overheating and meltin
Re: (Score:2)
If you apply 48V across the same resistor, the current will be 4A and the power 16W.
More like 192W.
Re: The problem is the sockets are ill-designed. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On any device that's properly designed, you'll have overvoltage protection (a crowbar) as well as overcurrent protection. When supplied with too high a voltage, the crowbar shorts, and the overcurrent protection opens. No fire, and the device is supposed to safely withstand such faults. The overvoltage protection is a necessary part of designing to withstand ESD, so it's not there merely to prevent people from doing stupid things and hurting themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Also, many if not most car chargers are designed to accept 24 volts, because there are now some vehicles rolling around with 24 volt systems. Virtually all of the 48 volt cars have a 12 volt system next to the 48 volt system, sometimes even with a separate battery! But at least with a step-down converter. But the 24 volt vehicles tend to have no such thing. This is cool because you can use an ultra-cheap automotive USB charger connected to a cheap solar panel to make a
Re: (Score:2)
24V used to be common on heavy commercial vehicles, and some military stuff.
But that was so long ago that I not only know what a carburettor is, I can replace or adjust one.
Re: (Score:2)
But that was so long ago that I not only know what a carburettor is, I can replace or adjust one.
My automotive history goes back to when cars had carburetors with a leather acceleration pump diaphragm, but I've actually never adjusted a full-size carb, only little ones on weed whackers and RC cars. Lucky me!
Re: (Score:2)
... but I've actually never adjusted a full-size carb, only little ones on weed whackers and RC cars. Lucky me!
I've rebuilt two carburetors in my life. The first one, from a motorcycle, when I was ten and I had parts left over when I put it back together -- which was obviously a problem. Huge, HUGE, life lesson in being methodical and organized when taking apart things. The second one, from a 1982 Honda Accord hatchback, when I was in my twenties, went much better.
Re: (Score:1)
According to the radio program "Car Talk", if you rebuild a carburetor enough times, eventually you'll have enough parts left over to build another carburetor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in a $6 car charger for your iPad that you bought from a street vendor in Cairo, no, fuses would be a waste of money for the street vendor supply chain.
Re: (Score:2)
At teh risk of being whooshed, I was thinking about the component that cost rather more than that and didn't come from Honest Ali's Emporium.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no form of overcurrent protection anywhere? Not even a fuse?
There is over-current protection specified according to FAA/CFR requirements, but in this case it's likely that a sustained slightly over-spec load condition caused point-heating and eventual ignition of surrounding components and/or the component container, allowing a fire to grow to the tipping point.
Spikes are easy to protect against, but sustained low-level over-current conditions can be tricky to handle.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Darn... I was so hoping to see that the Airline industry was finally putting USB charging ports and Bluetooth capabilities into the cockpit. Nothing worse that trying to talk on the phone while putting the flaps down. Hands free would be a serious improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Darn... I was so hoping to see that the Airline industry was finally putting USB charging ports and Bluetooth capabilities into the cockpit. Nothing worse that trying to talk on the phone while putting the flaps down. Hands free would be a serious improvement.
Nothing worse? Really? I think you lack imagination.
How about trying to land after an electrical system failure has disabled all the built in radios and you have neither a hand held backup radio or a cell phone. I bet that would be worse than using a cell phone to reach ATC, declare emergency and advise of your approach and landing plans.
How about a VFR pilot being forced to divert due to IFR conditions and flying out of the area covered by your paper charts? Bet you'd wish you had a charged tablet or phon
Re: The problem is the sockets are ill-designed. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the portable ADS-B receiver going to be used for?
apple battery? Apple Charger? (Score:2)
It's entirely plausible the battery or other parts had been replaced at some point. It would be completely unfair to blame apple for a fire in a non-apple battery or a non-apple charger. I wish they would give this information as it is very pertinent on how to interpret this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And almost every AC adapter today is a primary switched type which rectifies the incoming power, then do a HF switching and a HF transformer to feed the secondary circuits.
It could be interesting to see if 400Hz even would be a problem for the adapters though. But my expectation would rather be that they won't work at all rather than start to burn.
Re: (Score:1)
They work just fine. Don't ask me how I know ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The A320 cockpit has nothing looking like a cigarette lighter port.
But it does have, like my 2002 Honda CR-V, something that is clearly an ashtray, but lined with felt and embossed with the phrase, "Not an ashtray." :-)
Re: The problem is the sockets are ill-designed. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine a scenario where the crew have a small emergency, switch on their oxygen supply, and start a fire with the oxygen exhaled from their masks.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the iPhones and iPads use small AC power adapters, I would very much suspect that the difference in the frequency of the AC power on an aircraft vs the AC frequency of a residence would be a major factor.
I worked on aircraft in this man's US Navy and the AC power ran at 400Hz, rather than 60Hz.
400Hz would quickly fry a 60Hz adapter.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried it, and did it start to smoke or did it just die?
Re: (Score:1)
Did it many times on the ground in between flights. Laptops and iDevices. Never had any problem, all charge just fine on 400 Hz 110V.
Re: (Score:2)
The first step in a mains adapter is a bridge rectifier, which will work fine. A low power charger would likely then use a reservoir capacitor, before feeding a DC-DC converter. More powerful chargers (e.g. laptop) may use a high-power factor flyback converter, with a large low-voltage capacitor. These in general work fine at 400 Hz, but t
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'd really think it wasn't the iPhone or iPad, but the crappy cheap as crap adapter. As in, "Genuine" Apple chargers, like the ones Apple bought on Amazon only to find out none were actually made by Apple.
And the unfortunately reality is, crappy ass adapters are a safety hazard even at regular mains voltage. Who knows what happens w
Re: (Score:2)
That's the same thing in many trucks here in Europe, but what happens is that the device just dies. I have never heard that there have been even a smoke incident caused by plugging a charger into the high voltage outlet. And I have seen people do that mistake with laptop chargers - and they draw a lot more power than a phone charger.
Re: (Score:2)
the only way to tell is to crack open the airplane's POH
It's too bad you couldn't somehow plug a voltmeter into that outlet. [radioshack.com]
Egypt Air has a history of deflecting blame (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly a deflection of blame. I cannot think of a story that would put them in a worse light...
Re: (Score:2)
EgyptAir Flight 990.
Re: (Score:2)
And so they should. When you end up with human error as a root cause you have a situation that can't be learnt from or improved in the future. However you should qualify your post a bit: Egypt Air has a history of applying pressure to investigators to find reasons for a crash other than deliberate pilot murder/suicide.
That is quite a bit different from "human error".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I said "pilot action" rather than "human error"
Then why did you even bother posting against an article talking about pilot error.
I have a black cat. Just as relevant as your original post to this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, unless the pilot started the fire intentionally then I wouldn't blame the pilot for this one.
But we may be seeing requirements that chargers in the future should work at a wider frequency range in addition to voltages. Here in Sweden we also have 16 2/3 Hz systems, but those are on the railroad overhead lines and not something that people in general comes in contact with as it's converted to the more convenient 50Hz in the outlets of the trains.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a company iPad on th
Wrong socket? (Score:2)
So this is a USB type socket. Are they using USB sockets but for different purposes, such as mains power?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wrong socket? (Score:1)
Bad things tend to happen when one plug their cock in the wrong socket, especially on a plane. Don't even get me started if there are mother fucking snakes on it too.
Should read PILOT is to blame (Score:3)
If you plugged your 120v toaster into a 220v socket is the toaster to blame or the human?
Re:Should read HEADLINE is to blame (Score:2)
A simple analogy, if you have a car crash because you were texting, the texting is the cause, but you are to blame.
Re:Should read PILOT is to blame (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep in mind that because of the safety culture in modern aviation, even if the pilot is to "blame", human factors are often considered to make sure future pilots do not make the same mistake. So, for example, if a pilot was inattentive and rolled onto the wrong runway, often investigators then try to figure out if there wasn't something more obvious that could have been done to draw the pilot's attention.
So, in the case where you screw up and plug a 120v toaster into a 220v socket, even though its your fault, aviation officials would then ask if there was anything which could be done to prevent someone else from making your mistake. Like properly labeling the toaster and the socket. Or, better yet, designing a different socket so you cannot physically plug in the 120v toaster into the 220v socket. And if you went out of your way to force the plug to fit, they may recommend additional training to other pilots to tell them why forcing plugs is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't have to go out of your way, all you need is a cheap adapter plug. Not a good idea for a toaster, possibly, but modern electronics work fine on a wide range of voltages.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever installed the wrong plug on the toaster of the wrong outlet on the 220V circuit.
Re: (Score:3)
If you plugged your 120v toaster into a 220v socket is the toaster to blame or the human?
Although no toaster is designed to take such overvoltage, all portable devices that I have ever seen are designed to take 120v or 240v, so long as you have the appropriate socket adaptor. Though it's easy to assume that an aircraft power supply works the same way, pilots really need to know if they do not.
Re: (Score:2)
The toaster clearly, since it would have had the wrong plug on it.
And that is kind of the point. Human error is never the root cause unless all other systematic errors have been ruled out. Here the systematic error is that a standard socket was used in a non-standard way which could be used by accident. If the pilot had to install a defeat device that would otherwise have prevented the connection THEN and only then is it pilot error.
There are millions of styles of plugs in the world precisely because basic
Re: (Score:1)
I can easily find a 110V toaster and a $2 adapter plug, does that count?
BTW, there's a power socket in the cockpit that delivers 110V, 400Hz through a standard American socket. Probably not the best idea, but works fine for most modern electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
I can easily find a 110V toaster and a $2 adapter plug, does that count?
Only if you're genuinely incapable of reading. Allow me to quote myself:
If the pilot had to install a defeat device that would otherwise have prevented the connection THEN and only then is it pilot error.
Re: (Score:2)
This "defeat device" is sold in every airport. Most crew members have one or several in their bags.
Oh? Was one used in this plane? You're making a lot of assumptions about an ongoing investigation to try and bolster your argument. But if you are sure about it you should probably tell the incident investigators before they incorrectly blame the electronics instead of willful screwing around by a pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
The socket really is a standard American socket, it merely has a label with the voltage and frequency.
A systematic cause of concern. And if every pilot has an adaptor for standard world sockets it still doesn't change this to be any less the fault of the equipment. If it is that sensitive, and if it is "normal" for pilots to plug random shit in random places via adaptors, then the problem is fundamentally that it is a standard socket with a non-standard rating.
It's not hard to understand. When investigating these things if a human can make a mistake then human error is *not* the *root* cause, but rather a s
Re: (Score:2)
Frakkin' Cylons!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But often the pilot is dead, so the blame-game doesn't actually get you very far.
That's when you have a culture that needs to put blame on someone to punish them.
What you should use blame for: To find out who will have to pay for the damage, but in case of an airplane crash it's more important to find the cause so you can make changes in your operations to avoid the same thing or similar things from happening again.
The fact seems to be: The pilot plugged an iPhone into a socket in his plane that looked like a USB socket but wasn't one. There seems to be no more information, so the
Re: (Score:3)
The moral is: If you want a
Re: Should read PILOT is to blame (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still have the best shave of your life with one, if you you've never shaved any other way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you, Kryten?
Original reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
The original reporting was this article in Le Parisien: Crash d'EgyptAir : des experts se penchent sur des iPhone et des iPad [leparisien.fr]
The article is in French, so you'll have to use Google Translate, but it is worth reading -- it has details and graphics that are not in the Apple Insider report.
Thinness is ultimately the fault then (Score:1)
Imagine, Ives said "Lets make the phone 4mm thicker for a bigger battery." Now the battery easily lasts 2 days, and maybe the pilots wouldn't be charging their devices
Diversion from the Windscreen Heater Issue? (Score:2)
Hard to imagine a plausible sequence of events in which a USB-powered device charging would cause a rapid conflagration in the avionics bay. Most speculation to date has been looking to the windscreen heater circuit as a source of rapid heat due to high current availability at the location in question. There have been many previous incidents and close calls with these windscreen heater circuits and control units.